Catholic?

[Anthony Edgar]

Thing is, Peter was married anyway. As were early Bishops in the church.

Okay thanks, I didn't know Peter was married.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

2 theologians, very well known in Christian circles, both well published, one a Professor, were both 100% against Catholicism from a very early age. They both used to lecture 'against' Catholicism. Many years they did that.

Now, both of them are STAUNCH Catholics. How? After a lot of research, Biblical research etc. Many hours spent delving into scripture.

Scott Hahn Scott Hahn - Wikipedia

Steve Ray Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray | Author of "St. John's Gospel", "Upon This Rock", & "Crossing the Tiber"

Their stories are inspirational.

Cardinal Henry Newman was regarded as one of the finest theologians the Church of England ever produced. He too converted to Catholicism. Apparently, he initially set out to prove that the Catholic Church was not the historical Church, but ended up becoming convinced that it was.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

Well, that is your hope or guess, but that wasn't what happened, so now we have the issue settled.

Okay, I'm not an expert on the matter. Please tell me what happened.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

You've never heard of ex cathedra decrees, then?

Of course I have. What's your point?

 

[Anthony Edgar]

The Bible says that a "Bishop MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE".

Okay, so what happens if the bishop's wife dies? That bishop must resign? How come? What can a married bishop do that a single bishop can't?

 

[prodromos]

Okay, so what happens if the bishop's wife dies? That bishop must resign? How come? What can a married bishop do that a single bishop can't?

A widower is still the husband of one wife.

 

[Lost4words]

A widower is still the husband of one wife.

 

[Radagast]

The Bible says that a "Bishop MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE".

That's not actually a great translation. A better translation might be that a bishop must be "a one-woman man" (in Greek, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα). That would allow an unmarried bishop, but forbid a bishop with a wife and a mistress.

Of course 1 Timothy 3:4 also suggests the presence of children, which is not quite so compatible with the unmarried option.

 

[ralfyman]

All right then, we need to keep tradition separate from Sacred Tradition. Most things that have any history in the church can be called tradition, but that doesn't make them the authority for setting doctrine.

If we understand this, saying something like the Bible is not the supreme authority for determining doctrine because the Church didn't have all the books in place on Ascension Thursday is a meaningless statement and absolutely does not depreciate the word of God whenever it was that we received it or recognized it!

It cannot be a meaningless statement because some of those doctrines were considered in selecting the books that would be included in the Christian Bible.

 

[Radagast]

It cannot be a meaningless statement because some of those doctrines were considered in selecting the books that would be included in the Christian Bible.

I don't believe they were.

 

[Major1]

Incorrect!

He is NOT married at all.

This is the classic example of making the Scriptures fit a preconceived agenda.

 

[Major1]

That's not actually a great translation. A better translation might be that a bishop must be "a one-woman man" (in Greek, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα). That would allow an unmarried bishop, but forbid a bishop with a wife and a mistress.

Of course 1 Timothy 3:4 also suggests the presence of children, which is not quite so compatible with the unmarried option.

Actually the Greek would literally be translated as “one-woman man.” In other words, a bishop must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to.

 

[Major1]

Okay, so what happens if the bishop's wife dies? That bishop must resign? How come? What can a married bishop do that a single bishop can't?

So then by your admission you are suggesting that ALL the Catholic bishops were at one time married and they are all now Widowers????

THAT is you premise???

Please take the time to read what the Scriptures actually say my friend.

Matthew 19:9 …......…….

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

1 Tim. 3:2......
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

Please understand that your argument is not with ME. I did not write those words in the Bible.

 

[Major1]

So Jesus could not even rise to the rank of bishop … in his own Church! Peter and Paul - unmarried men but apostles - could not be bishops? How does that work?

And why is having a wife necessary to be bishop? What is the logic behind that?

STUDY to show thy self approved, a workman.

So Jesus could not even rise to the rank of bishop … in his own Church! Peter and Paul - unmarried men but apostles - could not be bishops? How does that work?

And why is having a wife necessary to be bishop? What is the logic behind that?

Matthew 8:14......
Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

Scriptures suggest that Paul was a widower in 1 Corinthians 9:5.....
"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

Jesus was God and as such He came to save humanity and not to be married.

 

[Major1]

Imagine that … getting sent to hell forever because you didn't get wet enough during baptism!

STUDY to show thy self approved!

 

[Major1]

Its amazing how many people truly dont know or understand Catholicism. They just dont have a clue about the church, its teachings etc. They blindly throw about unfounded untruths and misinformation about the church.

There are quite a few 'Sola Scripture' people on these forums who have a deep hatred for 'Catholicism'.

That IMO is not true. It may be perceived by you as such but that is because some one is saying something that you do not agree with and can not deny with Bible Scriptures.

So then, the only thing left to do is say we hate Catholics. That is simply not true.

Some of us actually post the exact words of the RCC Catechism and the Word of God to see which one is the correct one.

 

[Major1]

Imagine that … getting sent to hell forever because you didn't get wet enough during baptism!

Something worse than that is choosing to go to hell because you thought getting wet with water was better than the blood of Jesus Christ.

Are you really believing what you are saying???????

 

[Major1]

The canon which constituted the same NT which you mention was formed after 300. The basis of canon formation is early Church tradition which you keep ignoring.

The points which you raise come from the same Church tradition, including veneration of Mary (as seen in frescoes and paintings from the second century onward).

Your final point refers to authority of the Pope and the formation of Papal states, but the Roman Catholic Church stems from the Bishop of Rome. And that came much earlier than 590.

All of your comments are opinions. All I have posted is historical facts.

Can you post anything to validate your opinions?

 

[Albion]

It cannot be a meaningless statement because some of those doctrines were considered in selecting the books that would be included in the Christian Bible.

It was the statement that I said was meaningless, not the process of selecting the books of the Bible or other aspects of the issue we have been discussing here. It seems obvious to me that if you discover anything and it has value, the value is not destroyed simply because of the time or circumstances that relate to the act of finding it. Isn't that so? If, for instance, we discover a cure for cancer, would it be reasonable to say "yes, but the work that went into it was tough and time-consuming, so this means that the cure doesn't work." (?)

 

[Lost4words]

That IMO is not true. It may be perceived by you as such but that is because some one is saying something that you do not agree with and can not deny with Bible Scriptures.

So then, the only thing left to do is say we hate Catholics. That is simply not true.

Some of us actually post the exact words of the RCC Catechism and the Word of God to see which one is the correct one.

You still interpret scripture to mean something that fits your very own opinions. You see things differently, so Catholics must be wrong in your eyes.